MOTOR DRIVERS
NECESSITY for PRiECAUT-ON
JUDGE’S ADDRESS JO JURY
(Per Press Association-r Copyright.)
WELLINGTON, July. 28
The great responsibility devolving upon juries who have to try cases in which there has been loss of life through,alleged negligence oka motorist, was referred to by His Honour, Mr Justice Reed, in directing the jury at the conclusion of the trial of James Thomas Rutherford. “Duty is cart upon juries to see if it is possible to reduce tuis shocking loss of life by insisting upon a high degree of care,” said His Honour.
He alf’o commented °n the non-ob-servance by many motorists of the railway compulsory stop notice at level crossings. His Honour said that, without hesitation, and with some experience of .such cases, fully ninety per cent, of them were du 6 to negligence, and probably ten per cent, to inevitable accident. Speed was often blamed but his experience was that speed was not often the factor. A careful driver took, no risks, but a careless driver often would take u risk. His Honour said 'that it was the juries of the Dominion that had set th 6 degree of negligence. -/Duty was cart upon juries to see if it were possible to Teduce the shocking loss of life by insisting upon a high degree of care in* the management of motor vehicles. * If juries were strict it did not necessarily follow that the person concerned should b e punched severely. It was of great importance, however,.- that a should not escape being convicted where the jury was thoroughly satisfied there had been negligence, and loss of life had been due to .negligent handling of a car. The higher degree of care demanded the more deterrent there would be. Regarding the compulsory stop sign, His Honour said that the rule, was a ■stringent one, and was supposed to be obeyed. He was aware that it was not obeyed, that persons did not actually stop but at all eventh it was reasonable ground for exercising due care when approaching _ a railway crossing. The fact, however, that a person did not obey that rule was not conclusive evdence of negligence, but it was some ovidenc e of negligence. After reading some observations on negligence by the late Sir John Sal mond, His Honour said that, had RkitherfottV stopped his vehicle, he could havie heard the train whistle 1 , and could have heard the, noise o.f the train approaching. He thought the jury would agree that a reasonable man, before going on to a level crossing, would look carefully to gee whether a train was approaching, and’ that if he did not do so, lie was negligent. That was the broad point. The jury retired at 11.20, and had not returned at 2 p.m.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19320728.2.48
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 28 July 1932, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
460MOTOR DRIVERS Hokitika Guardian, 28 July 1932, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.